SI
SI
discoversearch

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor.  We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community.  If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.
Politics : Politics for Pros- moderated -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: goldworldnet who wrote (493584)6/30/2012 1:32:32 PM
From: Hank Scorpio8 Recommendations  Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 793896
 
It seems to me that if Roberts thought this was a tax, even though the Admin insisted it was not, he should have thrown the law out and told them to re-submit as a tax or change the law so that it was not. He easily could have restrained the Commerce Clause AND thrown the law out, and not been overtly political. I can't help but think Roberts zigged when he should have zagged. This was a mistake. He tried to make the Admin own the legislation as a tax, thereby HE HAD TO uphold the law. If it were me, I would have said this is a tax. Since that was not your intent this law is void and you'll have to re-submit.



To: goldworldnet who wrote (493584)6/30/2012 1:42:51 PM
From: steve harris  Read Replies (2) | Respond to of 793896
 
If Obama wins in November, there is no next time. At a minimum, we'll have the same court makeup we have now even if Romney wins.

It's a stretch for me to see anything good about losing a supreme court decision today, hoping for a different outcome when the members of the supreme court most likely will be more favorable to socialism.

Romney isn't going to appoint conservatives to the court.
jmho


HomeMailHotSubjectMarksPeopleMarksKeepersSettings
Terms Of UseContact UsCopyright/IP PolicyPrivacy PolicyAbout UsFAQAdvertise on SI
© 2025 Knight Sac Media.  Data provided by Twelve Data, Alpha Vantage, and CityFALCON News